Text 1

The English Reserve and Politeness

    It seems to many people that the British are extremely polite and difficult to make friends with. Hopefully the following passage will help you to have a better understanding of the British character.

    To other Europeans, the best known quality of the British is "reserve". A reserved person is one who does not talk very much to strangers, does not show much emotion, and seldom gets excited. It is difficult to get to know a reserved person; he never tells you anything about himself, and you may work with him for years without ever knowing where he lives, how many children he has, and what his interests are. English people tend to be like that. If they are making a journey by bus, they will do their best to find an empty seat; if by train, an empty compartment. If they have to share the compartment with a stranger, they may travel many miles without starting a conversation. If a conversation does start, personal questions like "How old are you?" or even "What is your name?" are not easily asked. Questions like "Where did you buy your watch?" or "What is your salary?" are almost impossible. Similarly, conversation in Britain is in general quiet and restrained and loud speech is considered ill-bred.

    This unwillingness to communicate with others is an unfortunate quality in some ways, since it tends to give the impression of coldness, and it is true that the English (except perhaps in the North) are not noted for their generosity and hospitality. On the other hand, they are perfectly human behind their barrier of reserve, and may be quite pleased when a friendly stranger or foreigner succeeds for a time in breaking the barrier down.

   Closely related to English reserve is English modesty. Within their hearts, the English are perhaps no less conceited than anybody else, but in their relations with others they value at least a show of modesty. Self-praise is felt to be ill-bred. If a person is, let us say, very good at tennis, and someone asks him if he is a good player, he will seldom reply "Yes," because people will think him conceited. He will probably give an answer like, "I'm not bad," or "Well, I'm very keen on tennis." This self-deprecation is typically English, and, mixed with their reserve, it often produces a sort of general air of indifference which appears to foreigners difficult to understand and even irritating.

    The famous English sense of humor is similar. Its starting point is self-deprecation, and its great enemy is conceit. Its ideal is the ability to laugh at oneself —at one's own faults, one's own failures and embarrassments, even at one's own ideals. The criticism, "He has no sense of humor," is very commonly heard in Britain, where humor is so highly prized. A sense of humor is an attitude to life rather than the mere ability to laugh at jokes. This attitude is never cruel or disrespectful or malicious. The English do not laugh at a cripple or a madman, a tragedy or an honorable failure. Sympathy or admiration for artistic skill are felt to be stronger than laughter.

    Like a sense of humor, sportsmanship is an English ideal which not all Englishmen live up to. It must be realized that sport in its modern form is almost entirely a British invention. Boxing, association football, tennis and cricket were all first organized and given rules in Britain. Rules are the essence of sport, and sportsmanship is the ability to practise a sport in obedience to its rules, while also showing generosity to one's opponent and good temper in defeat. Moreover, sportsmanship as an ideal is applied to life in general. One of the most elementary rules of life is "never hit a man when he's down"─in other words, never take advantage of another person's misfortune. English school-boys often show this sense of sportsmanship to a surprisingly high degree in their relations with each other.

    Another feature in Britain is politeness. On the whole British habits of politeness are very informal. All politeness is based on the elementary rule of showing consideration for others, and acknowledging the consideration they show to you. "Excuse me" is used as an advance apology for troubling somebody, as when passing in front of him or interrupting his conversation, or when putting a question to a stranger. "Sorry" expresses regret for an accidental disturbance or breach of manners. It also takes the place of "no" when you cannot agree to a request or an implied request like "May I borrow your pen?" or "Do you know the time?" or "Have you any size seven shoes?" "Pardon?" is the polite way of asking somebody to repeat what he has said. In Britain, except at school, "please" is no longer used in asking permission to speak, and the phrase "No, please", so common abroad, would sound most unusual in Britain itself. "Yes, please" is the commonest use of the word, and is the opposite of "No, thank you" when replying to an offer. A bare yes or no is considered very rude in this case. Similarly, a polite request does not begin with "I want" or "I think", but with a phrase like "Will (or Would, Can, Could) you please...?" or "Would you mind...?" When the request is granted, and at any time when you are receiving something, however obviously you are entitled to it, you are always expected to say "Thank you".

    British people do not readily ask each other to do anything that would involve real inconvenience: they prefer to wait for such service to be offered, rather than ask for it. If they do ask, then the request is accompanied by an implied apology like, "I don't really like asking you, but..." or, "I know the trouble I'm causing you, but would you mind...?" and so on. Similarly it is often polite to refuse an offer of service by means of such a reply as, "Oh! please don't bother," followed by an explanation of why you can do without it. In fact, without being conscious of it, British people sometimes make offers purely out of politeness, not really expecting them to be accepted, and offers of this kind are refused with the same politeness.

    If you are invited into a person's home, there are other questions to consider. For instance, what time should you arrive? If it is a social occasion, not a business one, it is not polite to arrive early. Your hostess will be preparing for you, and will be most embarrassed if you arrive before she is quite ready. Ten minutes late is excellent. Half an hour late is excessive and requires apologies. Then too, the British are rather particular about table manners. The main thing is: to sit up straight, copy everyone else, gaily asking what to do if you are not sure, and keep the conversation going. What time should you leave? There are no rules, but it is most impolite to stay too late, as it implies a lack of consideration for your hosts. If it is simply an invitation to an evening meal and conversation, you will probably take your leave between ten and eleven o'clock. If you have been asked to stay for several days, you will conform as far as possible to the routine of the house, and your hostess will be very pleased if you give her a bunch of flowers, specially bought, before you leave.

    Politeness towards women is less observed today than it used to be. It is still considered polite to give up one's seat to a woman who is standing, to open doors for her, help her alight from the bus, carry things for her, protect her from the traffic, and so on, and the maxim "Ladies first" is well known. But now that women are the equals of men in having the vote, taking paid employment and receiving higher education, they receive much less consideration than formerly, for the whole basis of politeness towards women is the feeling that they need protection.

    The same principle applies to old people. If they are respected in Britain, it is because they are felt to be in need of protection and support. Old age and seniority alone do not command authority among the British, in fact modern life has been developing so fast that old people often appear tiresome and out of date. Thus, "We need some young blood" is often heard in organizations where the energy and modern methods of younger men are felt to be more likely to succeed than the long but partly irrelevant experience of older ones. The wisest of the older generation realize this. They either make an effort to remain young in heart and keep pace4 with the times or else they let younger men take their place.

    It follows that mature Europeans have no desire to grow old or to look older than they are. Women especially, for reasons of sexual attraction, long to "stay young" and there is no greater compliment to a mature woman than to be told "How young you look!" On the other hand, if a woman's hairstyle, make-up and clothes reveal an obvious effort to look artificially young, she is said to "look common," and is regarded with disapproval.

(1528 words) TOP

课文一

英国人的谨慎和礼貌

    在许多人看来，英国人极为礼貌，同他们交朋友很难。但愿下列文字能够帮助你更好地了解英国人的性格特点。

    对于其他欧洲人来说，英国人最著名的特点是“谨慎”。一个谨慎的人不太会和陌生人聊天，不会流露出太多的情感，并且很少会兴奋。要了解一个谨慎的人并非易事；他从不告诉你有关他自己的任何事，也许你和他工作了几年，却连他住在哪儿，有几个孩子，兴趣是什么，都不知道。英国人就有类似的倾向。如果乘公共汽车去旅行，他们会尽量找一个没人坐的位子；如果是乘火车，他们会找一个没人的单间。如果他们不得不与陌生人共用一个单间时，那么即使火车驶出了很多英里，他们也不会开口交谈。一旦谈起来的话，他们不会轻易问及像“你多大年龄？”或者甚至“你叫什么名字？”等私人问题。像“你的手表是在哪儿买的？”或者“你的收入是多少？”这样的问题几乎不可想象。同样，在英国，人们交谈时一般声音都很轻、很有节制，大声谈话会被视为没有教养。

    在某种程度上，不愿意与他人交流是一种不幸的品质，因为它可能会给人造成态度冷淡的印象。而事实上，英国人（也许除了北方人）并不以慷慨和好客而著称。而另一方面，虽然谨慎使他们不易与人沟通,但他们内心还是很有人情味的。如果一个陌生人或外国人友善地将这种隔阂打破那么一会儿，他们可能会满心欢喜。

    与英国人的谨慎紧密相连的品质是英国式的谦逊。在内心深处，英国人可能比任何人都高傲，但是当他们与别人相处时，他们十分看重谦逊的品质，至少要表现出谦虚的样子。自我标榜会被认为没有教养。让我们假设，有一个人非常擅长打网球，但如果有人问他是否是个优秀选手时，他很少会说“是”，不然，人们会认为他很高傲。他可能会作出类似这样的回答，“不算太差，”或者“嗯，我非常喜欢网球。”这样的自我贬低是典型的英国式的。而且当这一品质与他们的谨慎混合在一起时，常常形成一种漠然的气氛，这在外国人看来难于理解，甚至令人恼火。

    著名的英国人的幽默感也是大同小异。它的出发点是自我贬低，它的最大对手是高傲，它的理想境界是自嘲的能力—嘲笑自己的错误、自己的失败和窘境，甚至自己的理想。在英国，人们非常看重幽默感，常常能听到“他一点幽默感都没有”这样的批评。幽默感是一种对生活的态度而并非仅仅是开玩笑的能力。这种态度决非残酷、不敬或是怀有恶意的。英国人不会嘲笑一个跛子或者疯子，也不会嘲笑一个悲剧或者一次可敬的失败。同情心或者对艺术技巧的崇敬比嘲笑的份量重得多。





    同幽默感一样，运动员精神是英国式的理想，这一点并非所有的英国人都做得到。必须认识到，现代形式的运动几乎都是英国人发明的。拳击、英式足球、网球以及板球都是在英国首次组织并且制定出规则的。规则是运动的精髓，运动员精神是指按照规则从事体育运动的能力，同时也表现在对对手的慷慨大度，以及失败后的良好心态。此外，运动员精神作为一种理想模式也普遍适用于日常生活。其中最基本的生活规则之一就是“不打跌倒的人”。换言之，就是不要利用别人的不幸。英国的男孩子常常在相互交往中把这种运动员精神表现得淋漓尽致。






    英国人的另一特点就是礼貌。总的来说，英国式的礼貌习惯都不很正式。所有的礼貌都是建立在这样的基本原则之上：为别人着想，同时也认可别人对你的关心。在麻烦别人时，如：从某人前面经过，或者打断某人的谈话，或者向陌生人请教问题时，要先说“对不起”，为给对方带来的不便预先道歉。“抱歉”一词表示对意外打扰或者违反礼仪的歉意。如果有人提出或者暗示某个要求，如：“我可以借你的钢笔吗嘛？”或者“现在几点了？”或者“还有七码的鞋吗？”，而你无法满足这种要求时，也要说“抱歉”而不是“不”。“请原谅？”是用来要求别人重复所说内容时的礼貌说法。在英国，除了在学校，人们在请求发言时，不再用“请”这个词。在国外非常普遍的词组“不，请”，在英国本土听起来却会很别扭。“好的，请”，是最常用的说法，它与人们拒绝帮助时通常所说的：“不，谢谢”的意思正好相反。单单一个是或不是在这种情况下被视为非常无礼。同样，礼貌的要求不会以“我想”或者“我认为”开头，而是用“你能不能……？”或者“你是否介意……？”这样的措辞。当你的要求被满足，当你收到某一物品时，不管你怎样受之无愧，你永远应当说声“谢谢”。

    如果事情确实很麻烦，英国人一般不会要求别人去做：他们情愿等待有人提供这样的服务，而不会主动提出要求。如果他们确实提出要求，那么要求中会含有歉意，例如：“我不是真的想麻烦你，但是……?”或者“我清楚我给你带来的麻烦，但是如果你不介意……？”等等。同样，在拒绝别人的服务时，礼貌的说法往往是这样：“哦！请别费心，”接着解释你为什么自己能够处理。实际上，人们没有意识到，英国人常常是出于礼貌而提供帮助，他们并不真的希望自己的提议被接受；当然，这样的提议也会以同样的礼貌被婉言谢绝。

    如果你被邀请到某人家中做客，还有另外的问题需要考虑。例如，你应当什么时候到达？如果这是个社交活动而不是商业活动，提早到是不礼貌的。女主人也许正在为你的到来做准备，如果在她还没有完全准备好之前你就到了，这会令人非常尴尬。迟到十分钟是绝好的选择。迟到半小时就超过底线，并且需要道歉了。而且，英国人也非常讲究餐桌礼仪。关键问题是：坐直身体，照着别人的样子去做。如果你没有把握，可以愉快地向别人请教，并且将谈话进行下去。什么时候应该离开呢？这没有定规，但是呆到很晚总是不礼貌的，因为这就意味着对主人不够体谅。如果只是邀请你吃晚饭和聊天的话，在十点到十一点之间离开即可。如果你被挽留再多逗留几日，你得尽可能地遵从这个家庭的生活习惯。离开之前，如果你特别为女主人买一束献花的话，她会非常高兴。

    对女士的礼貌如今看得不像以前那样重。但是给一位站着的女士让座，为她开门，帮她下车，为她拿东西，保护她避开车辆等仍被视为一种礼貌。“女士优先”的格言是很出名的。但现在由于女士和男士一样平等地享有选举权，受雇用以及接受更高等教育的权利，她们受到的照顾比以前少得多，因为对女士的礼貌是建立在对她们的同情心基础之上的──即她们需要保护。




    这一原则同样适用老年人。如果他们在英国受到尊敬，那是因为别人认为他们需要保护和扶持。单单年老和有资历在英国并不享有权威，实际上，现代生活发展得如此迅速，老年人常常会显得麻烦人和落伍。于是，在一些机构，与年长者漫长却不相关的工作经历相比，年轻人旺盛的精力和现代方法被认为更有可能成功，由此，人们常常可以听到“我们需要一些新鲜血液”的说法。老一辈中最明智的人意识到了这一点，他们要么努力保持年轻的心态，跟上时代的步伐，否则就让位于年轻的一代。

    因而，成熟的欧洲人都不想变老，或者不愿意变得看上去比自己的实际年龄老。特别是女士，为了保持性吸引力，更渴望“永葆青春”。对于成熟女性来说，没有比“你看上去好年轻！”更好的赞扬。另一方面，如果一个女士在发型、化妆以及服饰方面明显地追求人为的年轻，人们会认为她“看上去很庸俗，”而对她的做法持否定态度。

返回

Text 2

Does Anybody Really Care?

    This cry of despair is more common than we may realize. Some of us speak these words rarely; others say them every day─silently or aloud. To hear the cry for help requires extra-sensitive perception. We can hear it only if we listen with the third ear, a trenchant phrase of Theodore Reik.

    For example, I often visited a Negro friend in a home for the elderly. The place was sterilized and the environment was sterile. My friend was old, dispirited, and he wanted to die. He often said, "I'm a lost ball in the tall weeds." He felt unfulfilled. He knew that if he had been white, he could have been a successful professional man. "I think about this every day of my life," he said. Who cared about this Negro workman who had helped erect many buildings in downtown Columbus? Hardly anyone.

    We have been remiss both in caring for and caring about the elderly. Perhaps they suggest too strongly our own morality, the guilt we may deservedly or undeservedly feel about our own aging parents. The Great Society needs a more creative approach to what are euphemistically called the golden years. The program of the First Community Village in Columbus, Ohio, and other similar centers may be a happy augury of things to come.

    Edna St. Vincent Millay once said, "O world, I cannot hold thee close enough!" To care for people is to wish to be close to them, in their presence, to penetrate the mask we all wear. It is interesting that our comments about communication with other people include such expressions as "We were very close," "I was deeply touched," "He was greatly affected."

    To care deeply for persons is to see them not as plumbers, scientists, clerks, lawyers, mathematicians, or as white, yellow, or black. It is to see them as unique individuals with all their idiosyncrasies, strengths, and weaknesses, their similarities and differences. Caring is color-blind, uncalculating.

   To care or not to care is a problem of communication. Sol, the instrument maker in Dombey and Son talked to his nephew about Mr. Dombey. The nephew said, "I thought he didn't seem to like me very much." "You mean, I suppose," Sol replied, "that you didn't seem to like him very much." When the mutuality of caring does not take place, we often put the burden of its absence on the other fellow. We may thus hide our true feelings.

    Indeed, the popularity of the mask as an art form in all cultures suggests that we have a public face and a private face. Interestingly enough, the word "personality" comes from persona, meaning "an actor's mask." We ask reporters who know public figures intimately, "What is he really like?" Many articles appear with the heading, "What is the real John Smith like?"

    Perhaps our wish to unmask others but to remain masked ourselves betrays a fear that our weaknesses will be discovered and disapproved. And conversely, the revelation of our hidden strengths may appear boastful. Sometimes, too, we do not want to disclose openly our unfriendly attitude because it is socially unacceptable. When we are rejected by someone, we tend to say, "I couldn't care less," meaning "I couldn't care more." Or we may not want to reveal even to ourselves that we care deeply about someone, for fear of rejection.

    The wounds of rejection go very deep. Shakespeare said, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound." But even those who have been deeply hurt do not automatically learn to care for others in the same predicament. For example, a North Carolina high school boy was doing badly in his classes, and felt that no one really cared. The director of audiovisual instruction asked the boy to help build a high school radio studio. He did this skillfully and joyously, and his whole attitude seemed to change.

    But one day he said to my friend, "You know, some day I want to be a teacher." When asked "Why?" he replied, "Because I want to make other kids suffer like I have suffered." His wounds were only partially healed.

    All caring has hazards and the outcomes are uncertain. To care for others and to let them care for us is a creative experiment in communication in which we may get hurt. But the price paid, the risk of being wounded, is the price of all communication. It is because we ourselves are hurt that we can understand the Oliver Wendell Holmes, "A man must share the sorrows and joys of those around him under pain of not having lived."

   Some cannot exchange love because they are emotionally and psychologically barricaded against loving and being loved. Dostoevski has Father Zossima say, "Hell... is the suffering of being unable to love." This inability to care for others, to love and be loved, is a theme of many great books. Dombey, for example, could not communicate with his young daughter Florence. Of this, Charles Dickens writes:

    "There were some children staying in the house. Children who were as frank and happy with fathers and with mothers as those rosy faces opposite their home. Children who had no restraint upon their love, and freely showed it. Florence sought to learn their secret; sought to find out what it was she had missed; what simple art they knew, and she knew not; how she could be taught by them to show her father that she loved him, and to win his love again."

    Florence could give love but her father was unable to receive it from her.

    How do we learn to care for others and to welcome their caring for us? How can we develop children who have "no restraint upon their love and freely show it?" The translation of a desired value into reality is not simple. T.S. Eliot has pointed out that

    Between the idea

    And the reality...

    Between the motion

    And the act

    Falls the Shadow.

    How can we discipline ourselves to make the dream a reality?

    As teachers and parents we can talk less and listen more. We need more sensitive antennas. We are not picking up the faint signals of discouragement, concealed anger or fear of failure. The voice of despair may be weak and need amplification. And we must get these messages early, before they explode into violence and we shall be compelled to listen to angry shouting.

    It is not hard to care for people who are very much like ourselves. This is a form of self-admiration, narcissism. But it requires rigorous self-discipline to be concerned with, to care about those who are different. It is difficult to care for someone thousands of miles away, or for those at hand who do not act or dress conventionally─the so-called hippies, for example. We must ask, "What are they trying to say?" Are they asking, "Does anyone really care?"

    Is it possible that we are rejecting the ideas of young people in the guise of rejecting their style of dress? Remember, too, that conventional dress changes, as every woman knows. If we don't admire a person who is wearing a beard, long hair, and sandals, we must ask whether we would prefer to see Christ pictured with his shoes shined, his hair cut short, and clean-shaven. I have a friend who has a beard and who puts up his long hair like a woman. I might add that he is an Indian, a Sikh.

    We also have difficulty understanding people whose food habits are different than ours. However, the man who thinks it strange to eat raw fish as they do in Japan is fond of oysters on the half-shell. Some who think that bird's nest soup is "for the birds" enjoy eating the gelatin that comes from boiling the skins and bones of animals. And those cheeses that we like so well are made from milk that has stood long enough to putrefy. We do not use this word, however, but prefer nicer terms such as ferment, cure, or ripen.

    Caring develops best on a plane of quality, of mutuality. We unconsciously assume that our way of life is superior; that of other people's, inferior. I once heard a distinguished network broadcaster end an interview with some able foreign students by suggesting that on their return to their own countries they "spread the American way of life." How would he feel if, after visiting England, he was asked to spread the British way of life in the United States?

    We have expected gratitude from foreign countries for our gifts and loans. Look what we have done for them! But strong bonds of mutuality are not built in this way. Instead, they require that we care enough about people to do things with them rather than for them. Giving as unequals, we can easily develop an attitude of patronizing, immodest self-congratulation. We like to help the underdog, forgetting that this places us in the role of the overdog, the person who has the power to grant or to withhold favors.
    Are children grateful for what their parents do for them? They should be, considering how often they have heard about it. But caring and loving must not be evaluated too soon. Caring takes time. Love is patient.

    Caring must be learned. Children in the same family may differ markedly in their willingness and ability to share friendship and affection. Bonnie, at the age of three, already has a charm and grace in human relationships that her older brother still lacks. A seven-year-old boy announces that he will not give money to the Junior Community Chest. "There's something peculiar about it," he says. So his nine-year-old brother gives for both of them.

    No one expects to master the skills of tennis, basketball, or the dance by a few easy lessons. Hundreds, yes thousands, of hours of grueling, skillfully coached practice are necessary. Is it any different in matters of delicate human relationships? Caring requires the same disciplined practice.

    Are children and young people in school mastering the art of caring? Are the current heavy emphases on formal subject matter, on competition to get into college or graduate school resulting in more impersonal relationships between teacher and students? Are newer tools of technology which can be used with large groups actually decreasing the personal contact between teacher and student? They could be used to increase the interaction of student and teacher, to humanize the educational process─but are they?

    Christina says in Ignazio Silone's Bread and Wine that "In all times, in all societies, the supreme act is to give oneself to find oneself, to lose oneself to find oneself. One has only what one gives." But how often is this "supreme act" performed? How often do we give ourselves to find out who we are? Do we really care?

(1853 words)  TOP

课文二

真的有人关心吗？

    这一绝望的呼喊比我们想象的更为普遍。我们中的一些人很少用这类词，但也有一部分人每天都在这样说──默默地或大声地。要想听到求助的呼喊必须具有异常敏锐的感知能力。正如西奥多·瑞克入木三分的话指出的那样：只有当我们用第三只耳倾听时，才会听到这样的呼喊。

    例如：我经常去一家养老院看望一位黑人朋友。这个地方经过严格消毒，环境洁净无菌。我的朋友年纪很大，精神很消极，他不想再活在这个世上。他常说：“我是荒草地里一只被丢弃的球。”他觉得自己一无所长。他知道，如果自己是白人的话，一定早已是一位成功的专业人士。“我每天都在想这个问题，”他告诉我。谁会关心一个曾为哥伦比亚市中心拔地而起的众多大楼出过力的黑人工人呢？几乎没有人。


    我们一直疏忽了对老年人的关心和照顾。或许他们极强地说明了我们的道德观，我们会对自己年迈的双亲感到内疚，不管这种内疚是恰当还是不恰当。对这些被冠之以金色年代的老年人，社会需要采取更为积极有效的态度。哥伦比亚俄亥俄第一社区村庄项目以及其它类似的中心，也许是一个可喜的征兆，预示着新事物的到来。


  伊迪纳·圣·文森特·米雷曾说：“啊，世界！我无论怎么紧紧握住你都不会太紧。”关心他人就是表示愿意与人接近，当面穿透我们人人都戴的假面具。有趣的是，我们对自己与他人交往的评价包括这样几条：“我们关系密切”，“我深受感动”，“他被深深地打动。”



    真正的关心人是不分职业，不分肤色的──不管他们是水管工、科学家、职员、律师、数学家，也不管他们是白种人、黄种人还是黑人。是把他们看作独一无二的个体，一个有着自己的习性、长处、缺点，与我们有相同和不同之处的个体。关心不含种族偏见，也不计回报。

    关心或不关心是人际交流、沟通的问题。《董贝父子》中的乐器师索尔和他的侄子谈论董贝先生时，他侄子说，“我觉得他好像不太喜欢我。”索答道，“我猜你的意思是你似乎不大喜欢他。”关心是相互的，人们不能彼此关心时，往往会指责对方不关心人。我们会就这样将自己的真实情感隐藏起来。



    的确，在所有文化中作为一种艺术形式的面具的流行，说明我们每个人都有一张社会的脸，一张私人的脸。有趣的是，“性格”一词从“角色”一词衍生而来，意思是“演员的面具”。我们会问那些和公众人物有密切往来的记者，“他到底是怎么样的一个人？”许多的文章都写着这样的标题：“真正的约翰·史密斯是怎样的？”

    我们希望摘去别人的面具但同时仍保留自己的面具，这种心理也许恰恰暴露了我们内心的恐惧──害怕自己的弱点被人知道，遭人非议。相反，发现我们潜在的长处却似乎很值得夸耀。有时，我们也不想公开表露出不友好的态度，因为从社会的角度来说这是不容许的。当我们被人拒绝时，我们会说：“我根本不在乎。”其实是说，“我实在是太在乎了。”或者我们甚至不想对自己承认：我们非常在乎某人，只是害怕遭到拒绝。


    拒绝所造成的伤害是很深的。莎士比亚说：“他嘲笑从不感到受伤害的伤疤。”但即使那些受伤很深的人，也不会自动学会关心处于相同窘境的人。例如，北卡罗来纳州的一名高中男生在课堂上表现很糟，他觉着没人关心自己。一位影视教育主管要求这位男生帮助他建立一个学校电台工作室。他把这项工作做得得心应手，并从中得到很多乐趣，而且他的整个态度开始转变。

 
    然而，一天他对我的朋友说，“你知道，我希望将来作教师。”问他“为什么？”他答道，“因为我想让其他的孩子也受一受我遭受过的痛苦。”显然，他的伤口还未痊愈。

    所有关心他人的行为都有危险的成分，结果也没有定数。去关心他人或接受他人的关心，是一个具有创造性的对我们与人交往的实验，在与人交往、沟通时，我们也许会受到伤害。但所付的代价和遭受伤害的风险正是所有人际交往中必须付出的代价。这是因为只有在我们受到伤害的时候，我们才会明白奥里佛·温尔德·霍尔姆斯所说的“一个人必须在没有经历过的痛苦中，与周围的人分担忧伤，共享快乐。”
    一些人不能做到与他人互爱，因为他们在情感上和心理上有障碍，无法爱别人或接受别人的爱。托思妥耶夫斯基塑造的人物索斯马神父说：“地狱……就是遭受没有能力去爱带来的痛苦。”丧失关心他人、爱他人或接受他人关爱的能力，是许多伟大作品的主题。例如，董贝就不能和他年轻的女儿佛罗伦斯沟通，对此，查尔斯·狄更斯这样写道：

  “屋子里有一些孩子。孩子们与他们的父母坦诚相对，相处得非常愉快，就如同他们面对屋子的粉色脸庞所展现的那样。孩子们不会克制自己的爱，他们的爱自然地流露出来。佛罗伦斯努力想揭开他们的秘密；找出她所缺少的东西；找出他们熟知而自己却不了解的小技巧；让他们教会自己向父亲表明她的爱并且再次赢得父亲的爱的方法。”

    佛罗伦斯可以爱她的父亲，但她的父亲却无法接受她的爱。

    我们怎样才能学会关心他人并且乐于接受他人的关心呢？怎样才能把我们的孩子培养成“不克制自己的爱且让爱自然流露呢”？将这种期望的价值变为现实并非一件易事。T.S.艾略特曾这样指出：

在思想

与现实之间……

在动机

与行为之间

落下了阴影。

    我们怎样才能一步一步地使自己梦想成真呢？

    作为教师和家长，我们可以少说多听。我们需要更敏锐的触角。我们没有注意气馁、掩饰的愤怒或失败的恐惧所发出的微弱信号。绝望的呼声可能很微弱，需要变大。在这些微弱的声音突变为激烈的行为之前，在我们被迫去听他们愤怒的吼声之前，我们必须尽早得到这些信息。


    关心那些与自己处境相同的人并不难。这是一种自爱、自恋的表现。但关心那些与自己不同的人却需要有坚韧的自律精神。我们很难关心那些生活在千里之外的人，也很难关心那些生活在身边但行为举止、穿着打扮反传统的人，所谓的嬉皮士就是一例。我们必须问，“他们究竟想说些什么？”他们是不是在问：“谁在乎这些呢？”



    是否有这样的可能：表面上，我们拒绝接受年轻人的衣着打扮；而实际上，我们是在拒绝接受年轻人的想法？同时请不要忘记，如每一位女性所知道的，传统的衣着也在不断变化着。如果我们不尊重留胡子，蓄长发，穿草鞋的人，试问：我们是否愿意看到基督穿锃亮皮鞋，留短发，脸刮得光光的形象呢？我有一位朋友蓄着胡子，头发像女人那样盘起。或许我应补充一点：他是印度人，是个锡克教教徒。

    另外，我们还很难理解与我们的饮食习惯不同的人。有人对在日本吃生鱼片大感奇怪，可是自己却喜欢吃半边贝壳上的牡蛎。有些认为燕窝汤荒唐可笑，自己却钟情于动物胶脂──一种将动物的皮和骨头一起炖煮之后制成的食物。那些深受我们喜爱的奶酪是牛奶长时间存放，腐败后制成的。当然，我们不会用“腐败”这个词，而代之以诸如“发酵”，“腌制”，“成熟”这类更动听的词。

    关心他人在质量和相互依存的层面上能够发展得最好。我们会不自觉地认为自己的生活方式优越，而别人的就不如我们的好。我曾听到一个知名的网络广播节目主持人，在结束他对几位才华横溢的外国留学生的访谈时，建议他们回到祖国后传播“美国的生活方式”。如果他在结束访问英国时，被要求回到美国后传播英国的生活方式，他会作何感想呢？

    我们总期盼其他的国家会对我们的捐赠和贷款感激涕零。看看我们究竟为他们做了些什么！相互间坚实的关系不是以这种方式建立的。相反，这些国家要求我们关心的是与他们共事而不是为他们做事。如果以不平等的态度给予，我们就会很快摆出一副施惠与人的态度，会变得不可一世。我们乐于帮助失败者，而忘记了这样将使我们自以为处于优势，无形中使我们拥有了施舍和收回施舍的权力。

   孩子们是否感激父母为自己所做的一切呢？他们应该感激──想想他们听到这些话的次数。但对关心和爱不宜早做评价。关心需要时间，同样爱也需要耐心。

    关心是学来的。在同他人分享爱和友谊的意愿和能力上，同一个家庭的孩子可能会有明显的差异。三岁的邦妮已经会优雅自如地处理人际关系，而这正是她的哥哥所缺少的。一个七岁的男孩称他不会将钱捐给社区少年基金会。他说，“这样做很奇怪。”于是，他的九岁的哥哥为他俩一起捐了。

    没有人会奢望，仅仅通过几节简单的课程就掌握网球、篮球或舞蹈的技巧。这需要上百甚至上千小时的令人筋疲力尽的训练，教练的巧妙指导也必不缺少。要掌握微妙的人际交往不也是同样的道理吗？关心他人同样需要严格的训练。

  在校的孩子和年轻人是不是在掌握关心他人的艺术呢？目前强调课业学习，强调通过竞争上大学或读研究生，这是否导致学生与教师间缺少人性的关系？日新月异的、适用于大群人的高科技实际上是不是正在减少师生间的接触和联系？这一切原本可以用来促进师生之间的互动，使教育更加人性化──但做到了吗？

    里格内西奥·西隆的《面包与酒》一书中，克里斯蒂娜说过,“在任何时代，任何社会中,至高境界的行为是奉献自己来发现自己,放弃自己来发现自己。人只拥有自己奉献的东西。”但这一至高境界的行为是如何经常地得到实施？我们如何经常地奉献自己以发现自己是谁呢？我们真的在意吗？

返回